Naureen Shah

Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School Hosts Roundtable on Torture Assurances in US Terrorism Transfers

2011-02-08T08:03:00.001-08:00

MEDIA ADVISORY – Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School Hosts Roundtable on Torture Assurances in US Terrorism Transfers

New York, February 10, 2011—The Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School today will host a roundtable on "diplomatic assurances," i.e., promises not to torture. Since 9/11, the U.S. and key allies have increasingly relied on assurances to ensure the safety of detainees—often terrorism suspects—delivered to the custody of governments that torture. Today’s discussion will be webcast live beginning at 4:20 p.m. EDT at the following link http://www.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/events/assuranceswebcast.

This unique discussion among leading experts will address key issues affecting U.S. terrorism detainees:

· The risks of transferring current and former terrorism suspects, including Guantanamo detainees and renditions victims, to countries with records of abuse, on the basis of assurances.

· The U.S. government’s obscuring of the details of transfer arrangements, even while other countries are increasingly more forthcoming, subjecting assurances to political and judicial review.

· The feasibility of reform, including systematic monitoring of the treatment of returned detainees.

Roundtable experts include:

Felice Gaer, member of the UN Committee Against Torture & director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights

Julia Hall, Amnesty International, author of several AI and Human Rights Watch reports on diplomatic assurances

Ashley Deeks, Columbia Law School, former Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs at the

Department of State, author of ASIL paper, Promises not to Torture: Diplomatic Assurances in US Courts

Steven Watt, senior staff attorney, ACLU

Professor Peter Rosenblum, moderator and faculty co-director, Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School

Naureen Shah, Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School, report author

WHERE: Columbia Law School, Room 103 | 435 W 116^th St | New York, NY 10027 ;

LIVE WEBCAST: Visit http://www.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/events/assuranceswebcast

WHEN: Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011 from 4:20 – 6:20 pm

Media wishing to cover this event must contact the Law School’s Public Affairs Office at 212-854-2650 or email publicaffairs@law.columbia.edu

The Human Rights Institute serves as the focal point of international human rights education, scholarship and practice at Columbia Law School. The Institute fosters the development of a rich and comprehensive human rights curriculum and builds bridges between theory and practice, between law and other disciplines, between constitutional rights and international human rights, and between Columbia Law School and the world wide human rights movement.

Diplomatic assurances & torture event

2011-02-02T20:07:00.001-08:00

An event at Columbia next week with leading experts on transfers to torture based on "diplomatic assurances," in Guantanamo cases, renditions and deportations.

“Promises to Keep: Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture in US Terrorism Transfers”

Columbia Law School | Thursday February 10 | 4:20 - 6:20 pm
Jerome Greene Hall Room 103 | 435 W 116th Street | New York, NY 10027

Please join us for a roundtable discussion on the use of diplomatic assurances and Columbia's new report "

Promises to Keep," featuring leading experts and practitioners:

Julia Hall, Amnesty International, author of several AI and Human Rights Watch reports on diplomatic assurances
Felice Gaer, member of the UN Committee Against Torture & director of Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights
Ashley Deeks, Columbia Law School, former Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs at the Department of State, author of ASIL paper, Promises not to Torture: Diplomatic Assurances in US Courts
Steven Watt, senior staff attorney, ACLU
Naureen Shah, Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School, report author
Moderated by Professor Peter Rosenblum, faculty co-director, Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School

"Diplomatic assurances" are promises not to torture. Since 9/11, the U.S. and key allies have increasingly relied on them when transferring detainees, often terrorism suspects, to the custody of governments that torture. Assurances have been used for Guantanamo detainees, formal extraditions and extraordinary renditions. But the practice remains obscure. The United States has tried to keep them secret, while other countries are increasingly more forthcoming, subjecting assurances to political and judicial review.

Are assurances a viable tool for reducing the risk of torture? Or are they a "fig-leaf" to avoid accountability for whatever happens next? Can the U.S. - or any other government - reduce the risks of abuse where torture is common? If so, how? What makes assurances better or worse?

In late December, Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute published "Promises to Keep," a 174-page report surveying the known use of assurances, assessing arguments for their effectiveness and recommending systematic reform. This roundtable brings together those most informed about this evolving practice. Ashley Deeks has worked in the State Department legal office and written the leading articles on the subject. While at Human Rights Watch and later at Amnesty International, Julia Hall was instrumental in focusing the attention of the human rights community on the dangers of assurances. Felice Gaer played an early role in scrutinizing assurances at the UN Committee against Torture, and joined with Columbia in an effort to develop standards for their use. Steven Watt worked with the Center for Constitutional Rights and, later, the ACLU, on one of the most notorious mistakes in the war on terror – the rendition with assurances of Maher Arar.

Food and refreshments will be served. Video of the event will be made available on Columbia's website, http://www.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute

Asia Pacific Forum, Jan. 31, 2011: Halal Pork, Brooklyn's Battle for Academic Freedom & Justice in Sri Lanka

2011-02-02T20:05:00.001-08:00

Asia Pacific Forum  | Monday, January 31, 2011  | 9:00-10:00 pm EST

WBAI 99.5 FM, New York City

Listen or subscribe to the podcast at Asia Pacific Forum

*********************************************************

Halal Pork and Alien Punk Rock Hijabis

Through stories about alien punk rock hijabis and "Turban-scarf-veil-hijab's for men," Halal Pork and Other Stories (Upset Press 2011) is a humorous exploration of modern contradictions in the war on terror. Writer and filmmaker Cihan Kaan will join us in the studio to talk about and read from his brand new book.

Brooklyn’s Battle for Academic Freedom

After Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) complained to CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein about a new adjunct professor's Middle East course reading list, Brooklyn College canceled the appointment of Kristopher Peterson-Overton, who was slated to start teaching this week. Since then, Peterson-Overton has garnered academic and activists’ support on petitions and letters to the CUNY administration. From Joseph Massad to Nadia Abu El-Haj, this battle for academic freedom seems to reflect a larger pattern of challenges to academics critical of Israel's human rights record. We'll talk to Peterson-Overton about the environment and politics around the issues of Palestine and Israel at Brooklyn College and the latest in his engagement with the administration.

Justice for War Crimes in Sri Lanka

In the devastating final months of Sri Lanka’s 30-year civil war, tens of thousands of Tamil civilian women, men and children were killed, with scores denied necessary food and medical care. More than a year and a half later, the Sri Lankan government is still evading accountability and last week, it cut off talks for bringing a UN War Crimes panel to Colombo. We'll talk to Vasuki Neisah, a lawyer and Sri Lankan activist, about the ongoing struggle for accountability and justice in Sri Lanka.

*********************************************************

This program is brought to you by Amna Akbar and Naureen Shah of the APF Collective.  

Check out our last show, covering peace talks in the Philippines and the latest security standoff on the Korean peninsula.

 Every Monday from 9-10 PM EST, Asia Pacific Forum brings you coverage of Asian American and Asian news, politics, and culture.

For more information visit Asia Pacific Forum or contact us at info@asiapacificforum.org. Join us on Facebook.

new article in the Nation on torture

2011-01-21T13:35:00.001-08:00

Tune in tonight: Who's Afraid of Closing Gitmo?, China's environmentalism, Long March video gaming

2010-12-27T09:14:00.000-08:00

Asia Pacific Forum
Monday, December 27, 2010
9:00-10:00 pm EST

WBAI 99.5 FM, New York City

Streaming live at wbai.org

Or get the podcast at Asia Pacific Forum

*********************************************************

Who's Afraid of Closing Gitmo?
If Congress gets its way, no more detainees will be released from Guantanamo -- not even for criminal prosecution. Has fear of the "terrorist in our midst" trumped the sense that imprisoning the innocent is "un-American"? And were American values ever a real way to win the debate on terrorism and human rights? Joseph Margulies, professor at Northwestern University School of Law and co-counsel for torture victim Abu Zubaydah, joins us to talk about Guantanamo and the blossoming of fear.

Baby Steps in China's Budding Environmental Movement
With its huge populace and massive pollution problems, China is the world's biggest environmental disaster or the world's last hope for turning the tide back on climate change. We'll get an on the ground view from ZeeZee Zhong, an environmental activist with Shanghai Roots & Shoots, an NGO trying to work within the system.

Playing with Propaganda: The Long March into the Digital Age
The Long March is one of Communist China's most majestic historical narratives, and now you can play it with a joystick. We'll speak with Chinese artist Feng Mengbo about his approach to new media in a project that turns the Long March into a video game, now on view at MoMA's PS1.

*********************************************************

This program is brought to you by Michelle Chen and Naureen Shah of the APF Collective.

For our last show, which featured a post-conference update on the Cancun climate conference, Liu Xiabo's shady politics, and novelist Thaddeus Rutkowski, click here .

Every Monday from 9-10 PM EST, Asia Pacific Forum brings you coverage of Asian American and Asian news, politics, and culture. For more information see Asia Pacific Forum or contact us via info@asiapacificforum.org. You can also find us on Facebook.

Burge's upcoming sentencing hearing

2010-12-21T16:40:00.001-08:00

Please consider signing the Illinois Coalition Against Torture's (ICAT's) petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/burge-sentence/ regarding former Police Commander Jon Burge's upcoming sentencing hearing.

As many of you may know, this past June, after a twenty-five year battle for justice, Burge was found guilty of two counts of obstruction of justice and one count of perjury for lying about the torture he and other Chicago Police detectives committed at Chicago Police Headquarters in the 1970s and 1980s. Burge is now set to be sentenced on January 20, 2011, and he faces a maximum sentence of 45 years imprisonment.

The U.S. Pretrial Service has recommended Burge only serve 15-21 months in prison for his convictions. Such a minimal sentence fails to take into account: 1) the devastating harm Burge wrought on individuals and families in the African American community in Chicago; and 2) the lack of responsibility and remorse Burge has expressed for the heinous crimes he committed. For these reasons, Burge must be given a much more severe sentence that is commensurate with the harm he has not only inflicted, but that he has, for decades, also failed to acknowledge and mitigate.

If you agree with ICAT's objection, please sign the petition and pass it along for others to sign.

WashPost: Think tank plans study of how US treats detainees

2010-12-21T16:26:00.003-08:00

Think tank plans study of how US treats detainees

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK -- A nonpartisan legal think tank plans to study U.S. treatment of terrorism detainees, partly out of concern that the country's policies lack clarity and can be manipulated to permit abuse or torture in dangerous times, members of a task force appointed to conduct the study said Friday.

Columbia: With 'Assurances,' US May Still Transfer to Torture

2010-12-20T09:14:00.001-08:00

Download now or preview on posterous

PromisestoKeep_DiplomaticAssurances.docx (15 KB)

Report by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute Calls for Government Disclosure on Diplomatic Assurances against Torture

Media Contact: Nancy Goldfarb, 212-854-1584, nancy.goldfarb@law.columbia.edu
Public Affairs, 212-854-2650

New York, Dec. 20, 2010—A report released today by Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the U.S. government continues to take advantage of Bush-era secrecy in subjecting transferred detainees to the threat of torture.

The report, “Promises to Keep,” shows the government is bucking public scrutiny and judicial review to send terrorism suspects to foreign countries based on inadequate promises not to torture.

The U.S. obtains “diplomatic assurances” from known rights abusers, promising humane treatment and post-transfer verification. Since 9/11, the U.S. and allies have increasingly used assurances to deport and extradite terrorism suspects, or transfer military detainees when the risk of torture would, otherwise, render the transfers illegal.

“Even with the best assurances, some countries will continue to torture,” said Peter Rosenblum, the Human Rights Institute director and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein Clinical Professor in Human Rights. “But the U.S. lags far behind allies in committing to reform like court review and public scrutiny.”

“Promises to Keep” is the culmination of several years of research and advocacy on diplomatic assurances by the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic. According to its primary author, Naureen Shah ’07, U.S. secrecy is one of major impediments to meaningful assurances. “While Europe and Canada have compensated victims and disclosed essential details about the practice, the U.S. hides from past mistakes and refuses to disclose current practice,” she said. “U.S. secrecy creates the appearance of collusion with abusers. And it removes incentives for governments at either end to get things right.”

There are also signs that faulty assurances have led the government to inadvertently send people to torture.

In one of the quintessential cases of extraordinary rendition, the U.S. sent Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria in 2002. Caught on the defensive, the government claimed it had assurances. But according to an internal review by the Department of Homeland Security, the reliability of the assurances “appears not to have been examined” before the transfer. Once it learned that Arar was not an American citizen, the State Department failed to raise any concerns. Despite the assurances, Arar spent nearly a year in a coffin-like cell and was repeatedly beaten by Syrian interrogators.

But while internal procedures may have improved since then, they have not ended the failures. In 2007, the US sent Guantanamo detainees Rukhniddin Sharopov and Mokit Vohidov to Tajikistan based on assurances, despite what the State Department has called “life threatening” Tajik prison conditions. When the two later appeared in a Tajik court, they reportedly cried out that they were tortured. A leaked U.S. cable, however, suggests that the government did not pick this up. In fact, its seemingly crude monitoring may even have put one of the detainees in further danger.

“Without even acknowledging the error publicly, the government insists it can be trusted to prevent another Arar case,” Rosenblum said. “But to break from the past, it has to publicly revamp assurances policy.”

The report describes key reforms the US should make:
• Subject assurances to court and public scrutiny
• Rule out delivery of terrorism suspects to foreign countries with systematic levels of torture or patterns of abuse
• Set baseline requirements for the use of assurances, including explicit guarantees for US access to transferees
• Conduct effective monitoring based on international torture prevention standards.

A copy of the full report and a summary is available online at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/center_program/human_rights/NatSecHRs/DAs/promisestokeep

# # #
Columbia Law School, founded in 1858, stands at the forefront of legal education and of the law in a global society. Columbia Law School joins its traditional strengths in international and comparative law, constitutional law, administrative law, business law and human rights law with pioneering work in the areas of intellectual property, digital technology, sexuality and gender, criminal, national security, and environmental law.

Visit us at http://law.columbia.edu

Event today: Human Rights & Detention at Bagram

2010-11-10T07:29:00.001-08:00

‘Human Rights & Detention at Bagram Air Base’

A discussion with Jonathan Horowitz on the impact of counterterrorism operations on the war strategy in Afghanistan

12:10 – 1:10 PM | Jerome Greene Hall, Room 105, Columbia Law School (New York, NY)

HRI & Rightslink invite you to join us for discussion with Jonathan Horowitz, author of two recent reports on human rights and counterterrorism in Afghanistan. In an October 2010 report, the Open Society Foundations revealed Afghan allegations of inhumane treatment at a highly classified U.S. "screening facility" for detainees on Bagram Air Field. In the same month, OSF issued, "The Trust Deficit," which documented Afghan distrust of international forces due to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

Jonathan will discuss the impact that "counter-terrorism" operations are having on the war strategy and how the screening facility has been counter-productive to the progress that the Obama Administration has made in other areas of detention policy in Afghanistan. Jonathan Horowitz has worked since 2008 on conflict-related detention issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Previously, Jonathan was a UN human rights officer in Sudan. Jonathan received an LLM in international human rights law from the University of Essex, U.K.

Pizza lunch will be served.

Tues., Nov 9th 7-9 PM: Accountability: What We Can Do When Our Government Violates International Laws

2010-11-04T11:34:00.001-07:00

Sponsored by: Brooklyn for Peace, War Criminals Watch (WCW project), Brooklyn Law School & NYC National Lawyers Guild chapters & the Brooklyn Law School International Law Society:

Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 from

7 to 9 PM

U.S. VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

ACCOUNTABILITY
What We Can Do When Our Government Violates International Laws
RSVP:BLS.NLG.RSVP@GMAIL.COM by Nov 8 required for non BLS students
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010 from 7 to 9 PM
Brooklyn Law School Student Lounge
250 Joralemon (b/t Court St. & Boerum Pl.) near Borough Hall

(Detailed bios of the speakers below list of speakers)
Ann Wright: Retired Colonel and former US State Dept official -
Debra Sweet: World Can't Wait, Director -
Charlotte Dennett, Esq.: author The People v. Bush, candidate for Attorney General of Vermont -
Pam Spees Esq.: Center for Constitutional Rights, Senior staff attorney, international human rights program
_ _ _ _
Detailed bios:
Ann Wright: Retired Colonel and former US State Dept official - In 1987, Col.Wright joined the Foreign Service and served as U.S. Deputy Ambassador in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. She received the State Department's Award for Heroism for her actions during the evacuation of 2,500 people from the civil war in Sierra Leone, the largest evacuation since Saigon. She was on the first State Department team to go to Afghanistan and helped reopen the Embassy there in December 2001. Her other overseas assignments include Somalia, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada, Micronesia, and Nicaragua. On March 19, 2003, the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ann Wright cabled a letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stating that without the authorization of the UN Security Council, the invasion and occupation of a Muslim, Arab, oil-rich country would be a disaster. Since then, she has been writing and speaking out for peace.
Debra Sweet: World Can't Wait - Debra Sweet is the Director of World Can't Wait, initiated in 2005 to "drive out the Bush regime" by repudiating its program, forcing it from office through a mass, independent movement and reversing the direction it had launched. Based in New York City, she leads World Can't Wait in its continuing efforts to stop the crimes of our government, including the unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the torture and detention codes, as well as reversing the fascist direction of U.S. society, from the surveillance state to the criminalization of abortion and immigrants. She has worked with abortion providers for twenty-five years, organizing community support and helping them withstand anti-abortion violence. Since the age of 19, when she confronted Richard Nixon during a face-to-face meeting and told him to stop the war in Vietnam, she has been a leader in the opposition to U.S. wars and invasions. Debra says, "Stop thinking like an American, and start thinking about humanity!"
Charlotte Dennet, Esq.: author The People v. Bush, candidate for Attorney General of Vermont - Charlotte Dennett is an author and attorney who has been practicing law since 1997, representing injured Vermonters in negligence, medical malpractice and wrongful death cases, as well as civil rights litigation and family law, and has argued before the Vermont Supreme Court. She wrote The People v. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign To Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encountered Along the Way (published 2010) When journalist-turned-lawyer Charlotte Dennett became outraged that Bush White House officials were acting above the law, she did something that surprised even herself. She ran for a state attorney general seat on a platform to prosecute George W. Bush for murder. She lost the race, but found a movement-one that continues its quest to hold leaders accountable to U.S. law and preserve a Constitutional presidency.
Pam Spees Esq.: Center for Constitutional Rights - Pam Spees is a senior staff attorney in the international human rights program at the Center for Constitutional Rights. She has a background in international criminal and human rights law with a gender focus, as well as criminal trial practice. Prior to joining CCR, she practiced criminal law in Louisiana, where she primarily represented indigent persons in state and federal courts. In addition, she has worked as a consultant in international law with a focus on women's human rights and previously served as Program Director of the Women's Caucus for Gender Justice, an international advocacy network dedicated to ensuring accountability for crimes of sexual and gender violence included in the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. She now serves as an advisor to the Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice (formerly the Women's Caucus), which is now based in The Hague, to monitor the Court and continue the advocacy for accountability gender-based violence.

New policy brief from ICTJ: After Torture: US Accountability and the Right to Redress

2010-10-26T14:18:00.001-07:00

Publication: New Policy Brief on United States and Redress for Torture
Today ICTJ released
After Torture: U.S. Accountability and the Right to Redress, the third in a series of detailed policy briefs on options for addressing serious and systematic violations of human rights committed in U.S. counter-terrorism operations.
The brief addresses the question of the U.S. legal obligation to provide redress after torture and other serious human rights abuses of detainees.

“Redress is one element of accountability that forces us to look at both the legal and human consequences of wrongdoing,” said Lisa Magarrell, ICTJ Program Director and co-author of the policy brief. “Even the most emphatic assurances of a present-day ban on torture are at best a test of faith if accountability measures for past abuses are not visibly put into place,” she added.

ICTJ recommends that redress be part of the debate on U.S. accountability. Multiple elements of redress should be considered, such as rehabilitation needs and recognition of wrongdoing on the part of the United States.

Steps should be taken to make existing remedies more transparent, fair, and accessible in cases of detainees, and existing programs for torture victims should be considered as potential models or configured to attend to those who suffered serious abuses by the United States or its proxies. Eventually, the United States should create an independent claims mechanism to address these issues.

“Redress is a right under international law and U.S. law that ultimately cannot be ignored if the United States is to come to terms with past abuses and live up to accountability standards it has supported around the world,” the brief notes.

Previous policy briefs addressed questions of an independent commission of inquiry, and prosecution of those responsible for torture.

A full copy of the report can be found here (PDF).

"Boat People"

2010-05-25T09:03:00.000-07:00

On May 6, 2009, the Italian coast guard forcibly returned 227 migrants to Libya. According to Human Rights Watch, “[n]o screening was conducted to identify refugees, the sick or injured, pregnant women, unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, or victims of violence against women.” While the Italian interior minister called this interdiction at sea a historic “turning point” in the campaign against illegal migration, human rights advocates have filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights arguing that Italy’s actions violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits a state from returning anyone to a country where there is a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
I recently wrote an intervenor brief in this case describing the approach of regional and international bodies to interdiction, including the extra-territorial application of human rights law. The brief also describes the historical and current responses of states to boat migration, including the U.S. response to Haitain asylum-seekers in the 1990s.

Progressive Islam in America, 2008

2009-12-22T13:06:00.001-08:00
via Writings

Writings and Video on the Indian Police

2009-12-22T09:50:00.001-08:00
via Writings.

A Danger to the Security of the United States

2009-12-22T09:41:00.000-08:00

We recently wrote an amicus brief for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Yusupov v. Attorney General.
In this case, an individual sought asylum in the U.S. because he feared being tortured and wrongly imprisoned in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek government sought his extradition, accusing him of being a Muslim extremist and terrorist. The U.S. didn't extradite the individual; the Uzbek government has a history of persecuting political dissenters, and using broadly worded provisions of the criminal code to do so.

While the U.S. declined to extradite the individual, it also did not want him here: the extradition request that was the basis for his asylum claim morphed into a reason for denying him asylum, as a danger to U.S. security.

Put another way: we recognized that the Uzbek government was probably seeking to persecute this individual on bunk grounds, but we sought to use these bunk grounds to deny him protection, anyway.

This sort of turning-of-the-tables results from broadly written and overzealously applied counterterrorism laws which disregard our historical traditions. Our tradition of granting refuge to those fleeing political persecution is just one:

Asylum traditionally operated as a defense to extradition, to give fugitives refuge from the wrongful exercise of authority by despotic governments. See Guy S. Goodwin-Gill & Jane McAdam, The Refugee in International Law 356 (3d ed. 2007); Matthew E. Price, Politics or Humanitarianism: Uncovering the Political Roots of Asylum, 19 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 277, 286 (2005).
The U.S. has a strong tradition of granting asylum to individuals sought by authoritarian governments for extradition based on politically motivated charges. In the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson argued against U.S. adoption of extradition treaties, emphasizing that “until a reformation of the criminal codes of most nations, to deliver fugitives from them, would be to become their accomplices.” Price, supra, at 304 (citing 1 State Papers and Public Documents of the U.S.: 1789-96, at 146 (1815)).
Jefferson was particularly concerned about the extradition of individuals wanted for political offenses. Arguing against the extradition of fugitives charged with treason, he wrote: “[R]eal treasons are rare, oppressions frequent . . . . We should not wish, then, to give up to the executioner the patriot who fails and flees to us.” Id. at 306-307 (citing 1 American State Papers, Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the U.S. 258 (1832)).

This is a short excerpt from our brief; here's the full brief via Columbia.